Amoral atheists

[McCulloch]

In another thread

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

This is a common misunderstanding among Christians. Since they believe that their God is the source of all moral values, then how can someone who does not believe in the supernatural have moral values.
So, let's debate.
AlAyeti seems to have taken the position that atheists are by definition amoral and self-centered.
I will take the position that atheism is consistent with moral values and is not necessarily self-centered.

[Corvus]

Well, "being driven by self-centered wants" doesn't necessarily equal amorality. Enlightened self-interest is an example of self-centered wants bringing about beneficial effects in the wider community. And one can really only rationally serve god if its in one's best interests to do so.

There really is nothing wrong with self-interest. The problem is when one's self-interest impacts harmfully on another person. Although this isn't immediately the self-interested person's problem, it soon becomes one, and when he realises this, he acts with more prudence.

Sometimes acts of kindness are done on impulse, as when we save a child from a fire and then think of the risk to one's own life afterwards. Such actions are pure of the taint of ideologies and philosophies. They are singular products of circumstance and instinct.

[Squall]

Just because athiests don't have an absolute view of morality dosnt mean athiests are amoral. Just as many people with absolute standards can betray those standards and do amoral things.

[LillSnopp]

Well, im going to get screwed by this, but what the heck.

I dont really know what "moral" would be, so i dont identify it. Nor see any point in doing so. I wish to have a good world and thats it, which would identify me as a "good person". People whom claim that all others are going to hell and burn for iternity, does not validate as a "good person" in my eyes.

I for example, would like to clean the world of all weak elements, and having a stable number of around 500 million people on this planet. Is this bad? Of course not, its logic. Tellus is overpopulated, we do not have enough resources to make sure everyone have it "good". Yet, the people whom do not wish to do this, would say I am "bad", whiles millions close to Billions live in starvation and poverty, And they do nothing to solve it.... Irony?

[McCulloch]

atheist = someone who does not accept the position that there is a supernatural supreme being usually refered to as God.

moral = inclined to behave in an altruistic way. Will sometimes behave in a way that might be contrary to one's own self-interest in order to server some higher values.

amoral = will never take into consideration anything other than one's own self-interest.

[McCulloch]

By the very wording of his statement, AlAyeti has consigned to himself the burden of proof.

Nonsense is thinking that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.

He can multiply examples of atheists who seem to have no morals without proving his case. If I find but one example of an atheist who has "a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.", I have proven his statement false. But, I don't even have to go that far. If I can show that it is reasonable to believe that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants then I have proven his statement to be false.

[DanMRaymond]

I'd have to say that there are the same amount of atheists with decent morals as christians with decent morals (thinking of % not actual numbers) Your faith or lack of faith has nothing to do with the morals that you excercise

[AlAyeti]

"Back in the day:

Lastly, those are not all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all; besides also, those that by their atheism undermine and destroy all religion, can have no pretence of religion whereupon to challenge the privilege of toleration.

John Locke (1865), Essay on Toleration

///

Certainly I did not conceive this idea about "the godless" in some original dream.

Empiricism and logic drive the position held on how, why and what the stated belief of an atheist is indeed.

Locke convinced many that belief in Jesus as a miracle worker amy not be necessary but they stood their position as Deists.

Maybe I should have framed my statement that caution and concern about a person who says they believe in no god should be of paramount importance to people who do. And then rational people can wonder what restrains these believers in non-ness from doing whatever their non-souls and hearts desire.

It is rational to fear an atheist. History is certainly a guide to be trusted. If we can judge the worth of a God-fearer by them doing "wrong," we can then, by logic, be unable to do anything to measure the actions of a nongodian.

[AlAyeti]

McCulloch,


Your:

"He (AlAyeti) can multiply examples of atheists who seem to have no morals without proving his case. If I find but one example of an atheist who has "a moral position on anything but self-centered wants.", I have proven his statement false. But, I don't even have to go that far. If I can show that it is reasonable to believe that an atheist can have a moral position on anything but self-centered wants then I have proven his statement to be false."

/ / /

Whuuahht?

There is no basis for non-self philanthropy in an Atheist. There can't be. In fact why would an atheist even leave his or her name to a building (after they die) when they will not receive any benefit from the posterity of the gesture? Pure ego maybe but that speaks to my position that nothing an atheist does is and or can be anything but only self-interest driven.

Where is happiness originated? Selfishness. "My children are wonderful."

Where could anger or indignatoin derive its source? "They better not touch MY stuff!"

How can a crime be committed against an atheist? Isn't survival of the fittest the only power to the life's exisitence? Is robbery and murder just examples of survival?

Were there Atheists before Atheism?

How can there be logic in the mind of a person who wants justice and yet has no higher morality to claim perspective of right and wrong? It would inevitably fall to power. Physical power. Even the nerdy weak smart guy invents things to bring power and survival to him.

Deism is logical from every perspective. The vary nature of nature - many of the greatest minds the world has ever known - claims that that is factual. By physical observation. Empirical proof. From the Greek philosophers who gave Christians the facts about their God to the garden-variety creationist so hated by "freethinkers" today.

Atheism seems to be the weakest argument yet created in the minds of men. It's bad enough people who claim to be intelligent label themselves "I Don't Knowers" (Agnostic), but to wipe away the Prime Mover out of poutiness and self-centered desires is not in keeping with reason.

I'm with Locke on how to deal with that.

[Corvus]

There is no basis for non-self philanthropy in an Atheist. There can't be. In fact why would an atheist even leave his or her name to a building (after they die) when they will not receive any benefit from the posterity of the gesture? Pure ego maybe but that speaks to my position that nothing an atheist does is and or can be anything but only self-interest driven.

I fail to see how any of this (or the statements that followed) is any different for a Christian, a deist or an agnostic. Why do you wish to see your name on a building and why do you love your children, wish to keep your possessions and wish to see justice exacted against thieves and murders? Better yet, why do you follow the rules of your god?

How can a crime be committed against an atheist? Isn't survival of the fittest the only power to the life's exisitence? Is robbery and murder just examples of survival?

Very rarely do they become necessary for survival, but my life and my possessions still rightfully and legally belong to me, don't they? Securing one's life and possessions are why tribes and governments are formed, as this is a universal interest, and robbery and murder is just as much an assault on the community/state as it is an assault on the victim.

I must confess, I find your statement difficult to grasp because what "survival of the fittest" states is that if a species is surviving, it is by definition fit for its environment. This does not say all acts taken to survive are vindicated, nor is it meant to be a moral law. Remember that this historical truth applies as much to Christians as to atheists.